There was a vote to approve
the recommendations from the Committee on Teaching Effectiveness on the CTE
Manual. (Passed; 2 Abstained)

There was a vote to postpone
the EPC proposal for discussion and vote until an emergency meeting on May 11 (Passed)

III.� APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:

The Minutes from April 06,
2004 were approved.

IV. CHAIR�S REPORT:

The Chair opened by referring
to an e-mail he had received from J. Alemzadeh about a proposal he desired to
bring forth to the Senate for last minute consideration.� Walkuski explained that, since this
particular proposal didn�t go through the proper channels, according to the
bylaws, he would not put on the agenda.�
Walsh protested stating that this was coming from the faculty, but the
Chair pointed out that since the proposal had gone through the Faculty Senate
list-serve without prior approval from the Senate Chair or Steering Committee,
and from a non-member of the Senate, it was the Chair�s prerogative not to put
it on the agenda.� He also mentioned
that, since the item was regarding summer salaries, it should have been dealt
with when the contracts went out earlier in the spring.� Although Chair Walkuski agreed on the
importance of the issue, the agenda was already full with important business
and he had to keep in accordance with the standing rules.� Walsh asked whether a Senator could make a motion
not on the agenda and Poole read the Standing Rules: Except for matters of
urgent nature appointed committees shall publish committee recommendations to
all members of Senate two weeks in advance of the meeting in which they shall
be considered.� L. Krall asked what
happens if the Standing Rules are violated and the Parliamentarian explained
that there is no allowance for violations which necessitates the rules to begin
with.� Krall asked if this was the last Senate
meeting and Walkuski explained that there was a question as to whether or not
this was truly an appropriate issue for the Faculty Senate.� J. Alemzadeh spoke as to the urgency of the
matter, pointing out his serving as Senate chair twice.� Walkuski asked Alemzadeh to leave to which
Alemzadeh refused.� Walkuski offered to
have him removed.� There was general
debate between the two about some mis-communications as to what had transpired
within the prior 24 hours.� Walkuski
pointed out a clarification that he had asked Alemzadeh to present him with
evidence in regards to any promises supposedly made by President Taylor.� Walkuski pointed out that he had in his
posssession the Senate Minutes where the alleged promise was supposed to have
taken place, in Alemzadeh�s own words, that outline what Taylor did say.� Walkuski further pointed out that he had
asked Alemzadeh to wait so that Walkuski could talk to people on campus before
misinformation was leaked out erroneously.�
He said, �I am exercising my right as the Chair. Do I deny that this is
an important issue? No, I do not.� I am
simply questioning the timing and the grandstanding procedure at this time.

Bitterbaum was then
recognized and spoke to the issue.� He
offered his surprise at the direction the meeting was taking and asked that the
tone be lowered.� He told Alemzadeh he
was very disappointed at his discourteousness towards the office of the
President and himself.� He clarified that
he had called Dr. Taylor and that Alemzadeh had not been truthful.� Taylor never make a commitment that was in
stone and said that he would never handicap a future president.� President Taylor suggested clarification by
referring to the minutes of that meeting.�
Bitterbaum announced that Dr. Taylor had visited the prior weekend and
mentioned that it was both President Taylor and President Clark�s desire to get
to $3000 one day and Taylor felt he had made great strides towards $2700. He
further explained that when the tuition increase was made the campuses were not
benefitted thus taking 2.8 million dollars away.� �I said I have a fiduciary responsibility to
the campus.� We have to meet all of our
obligations. When they took away 2.8 million dollars, that really changed the
equation for us...We made a good commitment here, we can get to 3000.� I can�t say it�s in stone. If additional
things happened we would try to get there...(Jalal) you should have taken a
different approach. There are procedures. Do we actually have the dollars to do
this? We had to go into reserve. You have to appreciate, Jalal, we really wanted
to do this.� Circumstances are that we
can�t do it at this time.�

Alemzadeh made a remark
asking T. Fay to confirm President Taylor�s commitment from the prior October
Steering Committee meeting. Fay replied that Taylor made a commitment based on
various factors which was a step process based on tuition increase. He said, �My
recollection was he (Taylor) made a move to get towards $3000 that was linked
to tuition.

Provost Davis-Russell spoke
and indicated that she said it was always President Taylor�s desire to increase
summer session salaries, and salaries, in general. She further stated, �However,
it was based on our ability to do that.�
He said he would like to get to 3000 but he increased it to 2700 because
at that time they couldn�t go to 3.� He
said that he was a President who always said that he would not handicap an
incoming President.� She also reflected
that there seems to be a misconception that there is funding and it is being
withheld, which is untrue.

Walkuski recognized Yvonne
Mandname who confirmed President Bitterbaum�s good faith measure to raise
salaries to 2800 for the coming year which was sent in a memo with the
contracts delaying the contracts going out.

Walkuski made a request for
the meeting to move on with scheduled Senate business, however, Alemzadeh
continued talking but the meeting continued regardless according to the agenda.

Bitterbaum then gave up time
from his report to Alemzadeh.who said he appreciated Bitterbaum�s efforts
towards salaries. He said Jeff Bauer confirmed exactly what Taylor presumably
had said alleging that the President promised he would raise it to 3,000 in
three steps. Alemzadeh mentioned some schools that pay up to $6,000.� He mentioned the urgency of the issue and
also said he heard summer school monies were going into the Education
Department.

Bitterbaum responded to some
misinformation, saying that no funds are going to the Education Department. He
also reported on recent figures for other SUNY summer salaries: SUNY Brockport:
$2,400; Buffalo State: 2800; Geneseo: $2,400; New Paltz: $2,300;

Old Westbury: $2,750;
Oneonta: $2,500; Oswego: $2,400;�
Plattsburg: $2,900; Pottsdam: $2,400; Purchase: $2,400.� I will state the fact that we do the best we
can with the resource we have.

Chaturvedi asked a question
requesting some data and Bitterbaum offered to provide that to him.

VII.� VICE CHAIR�S REPORT:

No report.

VIII.� TREASURER� S REPORT:

No report.

IX.� SECRETARY�S REPORT:

The Secretary passed around a
roster reminding those whose elections are up to run an election.

X.� PRESIDENT�S REPORT:�

President Bitterbaum yielded
most of his time to Senator�s Alemzadeh and Chaturvedi regarding the summer
school salary inequity issue {SEE Chair�s Report}

On an optimistic note, he
said, his first news was reporting on the generation of the class of �2004 on
May 15.� He mentioned an individual named
Macumbo who would be receiving an honorary degree, a professional athlete and
humanitarian, recognized for all of the work he has done in Africa setting up
hospitals, as well as George Jones, class of �56, former US Mission Director.

He mentioned Mission Review
II being worked on by all campuses, having been granted an extension from
December through August, and then Patty Francis and her group will edit and
send it back to the faculty for review. His office anticipates sending those
documents, hopefully, late September or early October. Bitterbaum also reported
a recent SUNY discussion of a small tuition increase for graduate and
out-of-state students: $200 for in-state, $600 for out-of-state, saying they
won�t know the outcome until the budget is finalized. He also reported on the
40 million dollar budget, �which is terrific.��
It also appears, he said, �We are almost official as to Woman�s Olympic
Team Handball.� He finished by saying, �We
will keep fingers crossed...that will allow us to do good things if that is
passed,� referring to the 50 million added to budget.

Educational Policy
Committee - Anderson brought forth
the 3 proposals for consideration that she gave background two weeks
prior.� The first one addressed the
shared resources course policy at SUNY Cortland {SEE Appendix} Anderson
mentioned an amendment and Walkuski told her she could directly address the
amended version since it hasn�t been formally introduced as a motion only
changed first paragraph editorial change changes in italics on the green copy
passed around. Anderson then read the proposal(s).

Alwes asked a question with
the cap on 400 and 500 students literally necessitating one large class. She
brought up the concern of workload issues which would require more work in
holding a large class as opposed to two smaller ones.� Her concern was about the English Department,
in particular, where they do so much writing.�
Her other concern was about the �integrity of the graduate student� and compromising
them.

Steve Broyles was recognized
and addressed the issue, talking about the Biology Department, where shared
resources has been very successful, especially in his field biology course at
Raquette Lake. He talked about the maturity of the students, cost effectiveness
as well as the course being very challenging to both graduate and undergraduate
students.

Mattingly brought up his
concern that, although shared resources is optional, in times where budgets are
tight, a dean or chair could impose it on a professor unfairly.� He also worried that cross listing courses,
as other SUNY colleges have done, might put our campus at risk with certain
Board of Trustee members, such as Kate VanArnum.

The Provost expressed that
she felt it was unfortunate that Kate VanArnum has been placed in the middle of
this and not there to defend herself.�
She said when program proposals go through, one of the first questions
the BOT have to ask, is whether or not the department or campus has the
resources to support a graduate program. She urged everyone to separate the
issue of resources from this proposal and argue the proposal on the basis of
soundness.

John Cottone asked the
question that if the course had a different description, different numbers and
different titles, how could a student be prevented from taking the same course
twice?

R. Sipher from the History
Department offered to speak to the issue, his last 20 minutes before
retirement, as to whether or not a dean or chair could come to a professor in
hard times and ask him to teach a course, since there are always no
guarantees.� He also addressed Alwes�
concern, which he felt was a legitimate one, about compromising the integrity
of the graduate students. However, he felt that any chair or dean should have
faith in the quality of their faculty to do what is right for the integrity of
the college.�

Walkuski interrupted and
asked if the Senate would like to vote on having an emergency meeting on May 11
to continue the EPC motion, in the interest of time, since it was almost
2:30.� There was a vote and it passed.

Walkuski introduced a
proposal from the President and Provost�s office regarding drop-add, which was
a compromise to the 7 day drop/add period proposed and vetoed at an earlier
Faculty Senate meeting.

President Bitterbaum added
that this was an amendment to the previous one and he had asked the Provost to
go back and work with the deans, chairs and faculty, along with Donna Margine,
to come up with a plan which would accommodate everything they wanted to
accomplish equitably.� He urged those who
were not involved and had questions to call the Provost or himself. He also
pointed out that in the years of 2008, 2012 and 2017, for example, the campus
would have to go back to the old schedule, due to the calendar dates.�

XVII. OLD BUSINESS:

CTE Committee
recommendations.� M. Richardson read the
proposed recommendations from the CTE Committee. She explained the committee�s
efforts in obtaining feedback from the faculty.�
Walkuski said they could accept both proposals at the same time. M.
Friga had a question about a recommendation, saying, �Part of my issue is the
question of the validity of the items set behind specific peer review
evaluation. Friga said he thinks it is a good suggestion that it be part of
peer review and asked what sort of guidelines were used?

Richardson responded
referring to 8purview items. She further stated, �Other than that each
department may choose other CTE items and put them into their own lists, make
up their own questions, or write up their own short answer question if they
choose.� She said no change is suggested as to what CTE questions are used.

Hokanson mentioned that a
member going up for promotion can assess how students responded to questions,
especially if it was a difficult class and this information is especially
pertinent to the outcome.

Friga asked another question
about efforts at providing faculty with historical average CTE�s for specific
courses. He went on by offering an example, comparing a Measurement and
Evaluation class to a more fun, seminar-type class, pointing out that the
evaluations would come out differently.�
He asked, �What is the historical average which mentions evaluation...if
you identify average information?

Meg responded that although
she felt it would be of great value, her committee was not allowed do to that.

B. Mattingly mentioned junior
faculty who find turning in a CTE along with explanatory narrative makes them
feel defensive and they don�t like it unless it is specifically called for.

L. Krall was recognized and
asked a question about the survey the CTE Commitee sent out and the process
which took them to where they were now.

Richardson offered a response
involving departmental variations.

Krall talked about workload
and how threatening the peer review process would be to a junior faculty member
if they were observed unannounced, as opposed to an announced visit where they
would be optimally prepared. She said it wasn�t clear to her what kind of
objective evaluation was coming out of the peer review process.� She also mentioned faculty being stressed at
getting their folders together, as well as additional workload required of
herself, already a very busy Chair.

Walkuski suspended the
discussion in order to move onto other business.� He reiterated that it is just a trial period
and not set in stone, and although it might require be some extra workload,
which he felt is understandable, it could always come back next year to the
next Senate chair for review.

Richardson wanted to address
Krall�s question but Walkuski stressed that, in the interest of time, since EPC
had 3 important pieces to review, although he did not trivialize Richardson�s
business, he wanted to call for a vote.�
Walkuski stressed that if the Senate would go along and adopt the
recommendations that a dialogue could continue on campus. He also emphasized
that it was a trial� period. He
said he appreciated Richardson�s work but urged her to move forward in the
interest of other important Senate business.

Walsh asked for another
meeting and Walkuski clarified that it would be the chair�s prerogative.
Walkuski called for a vote and the motion carried, with two abstentions {SEE
Senate Actions}

Krall inquired as to whether
or not the Senate was the place to carry on a discussion of the CTE issues and
Walkuski replied, �I don�t mean to be disrespectful.� There�s a certain protocol on how meetings
are run...�

Krall raised another question
and Walkuski urged her to raise them some other time.

XVII.� AREA SENATORS REPORTS:

No reports.

The meeting was adjourned at
2:33 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Barbara Kissel

Recording Secretary

The following reports are
appended to the Minutes in the order reported and submitted by Senators and
other members.

(1) Administration�s Report
to the Senate submitted by President Bitterbaum.